Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case

Frank Turek's "Stealing from God" presents a presuppositionalist critique of atheism, arguing that atheistic worldviews necessarily depend upon theistic foundations to make coherent truth claims. The work functions as both a defense of Christian theism and an offensive against New Atheist arguments, particularly targeting the writings of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. Turek structures his argument around the acronym CRIMES (Causality, Reason, Information and Intentionality, Morality, Evil, and Science), contending that atheists must "steal" from each of these conceptual categories that only make sense within a theistic framework.

The monograph's central thesis maintains that atheists engage in intellectual parasitism when they appeal to objective standards of reason, morality, or scientific laws while simultaneously denying the divine grounding necessary for such standards. Turek argues that the very act of making rational arguments against God's existence presupposes logical laws, moral values, and conscious reasoning that cannot be adequately explained by materialistic naturalism. He contends that atheists inadvertently affirm theism whenever they make truth claims, engage in moral reasoning, or practice science, as these activities require metaphysical foundations incompatible with their worldview.

Methodologically, Turek employs a combination of philosophical argumentation and popular apologetics, drawing from classical arguments while presenting them in accessible language aimed at general audiences. His approach reflects the influence of C.S. Lewis and contemporary presuppositionalists like Greg Bahnsen, though adapted for engagement with 21st-century atheist arguments. The work particularly emphasizes the problem of grounding objective morality without God, the fine-tuning argument from cosmology, and the challenge of explaining consciousness through purely material processes.

The book's significance lies in its systematic attempt to reverse the burden of proof typically assumed in God debates. Rather than merely defending theism against atheist critiques, Turek argues that atheism itself requires justification for its borrowed conceptual capital. While critics may challenge the necessity of his claimed dependencies, the work contributes to ongoing discussions about the metaphysical prerequisites for rational discourse and moral reasoning. Turek's accessible yet philosophically engaged approach makes presuppositionalist arguments available to broader audiences while directly confronting popular atheist literature that dominated early 21st-century religious discourse.